Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (1) TMI 178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder, partly upheld contention of the assessee as to entitlement to duty-exemption for a specified period prior to 1-5-1973 and directed that the show cause notice, issued by Assistant Collector, in so far as it effected the clearances made during the period from 1-4-1970 to 28-2-1973 were concerned, was liable to be withdrawn, and the demand for recovery of the amount of refund given to the assessee was ordered to be modified accordingly. However, clearances effected during the period subsequent to 1-3-1973 were held to be assessable to the rate of duty as stipulate Notification No. 67/73, dated 1-3-1973 and, thus, duty on goods cleared during 1-3-1973 to 19-7-1973 was held realisable at the abratesdates specified in the said Notification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -1973, and that clearances for the said period may have to be leviable to excise duty at the rates specified in Notification No. 67/73 dated 1-3-1973, and that, because of this suppression of facts, the extended period of limitation was available. Subject to the modification that, for the period from 1-4-1970 to 28-2-1973, exemption was available and, as such, demand for recovery of the amount was not sustainable, the appeal of the party was rejected. 3. The appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubneshwar (Appeal No. ED/292/84-B) is directed against partial modification of the order of the Assistant Collector, by Collector (Appeals), inasmuch as refund allowed to the party for the period upto 28-2-1973 had been upheld; the plea bei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in respect to the goods; namely, M.S. rods manufactured during the period 1-4-1970 to 28-2-1973. It was, accordingly, directed that refund had been made erroneously only in respect to goods cleared during the period 1-3-1973 to 19-7-1973, during which period, duty was to be realised in terms of Notification No. 67/73 and, only to that extent, the refund allowed by the Assistant Collector could be considered as erroneous and that Assistant Collector should work out the duty realisable from the party in terms of his above order and work out the refund payable to the party, accordingly. It was directed in the end that balance out of the said amount of Rs. 6,67,376/- be refunded accordingly. 6. Whereas party s appeal (Appeal No. 2838/84-3) is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication had been issued on 1-7-1981 by the Assistant Collector and that, as such, there was no scope for any refund having been allowed erroneously. 8. The Department has come up in appeal - Appeal No. ED (SP)A-292/84-R - against that part of this order whereby the Collector (Appeals) has held that refund was rightly due to the party for the period upto 28-2-1973 because amendment to the Notification came into effect from 1-3-1973. It is pleaded that no amount of duty had been paid during this period and, so, question of refund did not arise. 9. We have considered the pleas canvassed on both sides. It is manifest from record that refund of total amount of Rs. 10,92,360.16 was allowed to the party by means of a cross cheque dated 12-10-1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lly - of the exemption allowed on M.S. rods made out of duty-paid pencil ingots. We find ample justification in the party s contention that Excise authorities were supposed or expected to be more in the know of any change or amendments in the notifications, as compared to the assessee. This plea has pertinent force because, undisputedly, refund was allowed to the party, after a show cause notice having been issued, and after a proper adjudication order having been passed. 11.In face of these facts, we think that allegations of mis-statement, so as to attract extended period of limitation, are not well placed, and thus the notice issued on 15-7-1982 was certainly beyond the permissible period of six months, as warranted by Section 11A of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates